Doe v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

MARIA DOE, et al. No. 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO SEAL v. (Doc. No. 128) COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.

Defendants. On February 10, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs Maria Doe, Clara Doe, and I.D.’s motion for approval of the compromise of a minor. (Doc. No. 113.) In its order, the court directed Plaintiffs to deposit $12,000.00 in a blocked account that Plaintiff I.D. will have access to in the full amount when she turns eighteen. (Id. at 8–9.) On April 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a request to amend the February 10, 2025 order and to file under seal the proposed amended order. (Doc. No. 128.) On April 22, 2025, Defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, and Darryl Roderick filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 129.) To date, Defendant Alida Estrada has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s request to seal, and the time in which to do so has now passed. In their request, Plaintiffs note that they have been unable to open a blocked account for Plaintiff I.D. because the February 10, 2025 order did not contain all of the information required by the bank. (Id. at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiffs state that to open a blocked account, the bank requires them to file an order from the court that contains similar language to that found in a Form MC-355 (a California State form). (Id.) Further, the order must list and identify any of Plaintiff I.D.’s name. (Id.) Plaintiffs request they be permitted to file under seal a proposed order amending the court’s February 10, 2025 order to meet the bank’s requirements to open a blocked account. (Id.) The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents where that party shows “compelling reasons” to support maintaining secrecy of those documents. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Courts also find “compelling reasons” to justify sealing court records where a minor’s privacy interests are at stake, including sealing information related to the minor’s identity and the amount of recovery in the settlement. See Huff v. Thousandshores, Inc., No. 21-cv-02173-HSG, 2022 WL 547109, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to seal the plaintiff’s motion for minor’s compromise and settlement agreement in their entirety to “prevent third parties from targeting the child or soliciting the child when the child is old enough to control the funds.”) Here, the court finds compelling reasons to permit Plaintiffs to file, under seal, a proposed amended order. The court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s request to seal. Accordingly, 1. Plaintiffs’ request to file under seal a proposed order amending the court’s February 10, 2025 order (Doc. No. 128) is GRANTED; 2. Within seven (7) days from the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall email a PDF copy of their proposed amended order to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on the docket in this case; and 3. Within seven (7) days from the date of this order, the parties shall file a proposed protective order designating what non-parties may view the court’s order directing Plaintiff to deposit funds into a blocked account. IT IS SO ORDERED. □ Dated: _ August 22, 2025 EQUI os Dena Coggins United States District Judge